Jo Johnson: I beg to move amendment 89, in clause56,page33,line31,after “providers” insert
“or linked institutions in relation to such providers”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 90.

Gordon Marsden: May I echo the Minister’s sentiments by saying what a great pleasure it is to have you in the Chair again, Sir Edward?
We welcome the amendments, which put important flesh on the bones and are not simply technical, as some amendments are. They show that the Government have looked at and taken cognisance of the complex structures in which such things can be done and particularly what the National Audit Office said in 2014, when it conducted an inquiry into private higher education providers after concerns were raised relating to support provided to students at some alternative providers.
The provisions in clause 56 address some of those concerns, but the Minister will know—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central talked about this on Tuesday, when discussing new clause 9—that we have in this arena at the moment some very complex business, corporate and judicial arrangements. This is only talking about companies that operate principally in the United Kingdom. I am not saying that every alternative provider in the UK is good or that every alternative provider from outside the UK is bad. Nevertheless, as my hon.  Friend said, the more complex the structure, the more opportunities there are for difficulty—I put it no stronger than that.
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend said that some companies are
“less concerned than others with the quality of the offer they make…Theirs is a model in which companies offer a product, and students are then attracted by aggressive marketing…are let down by the quality of provision…and face enormous debts to repay.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 11 October 2016; c. 383.]
Of course, those are the worst circumstances. Given the Minister’s eagerness to expand the alternative provider sector, I know he is doing his best to assure us all that this will be the exception rather than the rule, but if we look at what has happened in the United States—the Century scandal and various other problems—we see that the common denominator is complex structures of corporate governance that have allowed some of these abuses to flourish. We therefore welcome the strengthening of the provisions by these amendments.
I refer to the Commons Library briefing, which says:
“The Impact Assessment states that this provision will ‘deter noncompliant behaviour’ and ‘reduce reputation risk’ to the sector. It should also facilitate the recovery of misused public funds.”
The impact assessment says that the provision will reduce those risks, not that it will eliminate them. We therefore believe it is right to proceed on the precautionary principle. We welcome the amendments and will wait to see whether they are adequate for the purpose.

Gordon Marsden: It may be too early in the morning for me because I have still not quite absorbed the full detail of that response, although I am sure it is accurate. However, on the basis of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We can always return to them in another place, if necessary.

Gordon Marsden: I beg to move amendment 293, in clause59,page35,line23,after “when” insert “,where”
This amendment would ensure the OfS must consider where it is publishing information on higher education courses provided in England.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 294, in clause59,page35,line28,before “people” insert “all”
See explanatory statement for amendment 295.
Amendment 295, in clause59,page35,line28,after “people” insert “,whatever their age or individual circumstances,”
This amendment would include prospective adult students, as well as those leaving school, in the distribution of information.
Amendment 296, in clause59,page35,line29,at end insert—
‘( ) existing and potential higher education staff.”
This amendment would ensure that the duty to publish English higher education information includes information that is useful to existing and potential higher education staff.
Amendment 297, in clause59,page35,line41,at end insert—
‘( ) a number of persons that, taken together, appear to the OfS to represent, or promote the interests of, higher education staff, and”
This amendment would ensure consultation with bodies representing higher education staff.

Gordon Marsden: The amendments also have at their heart the need to reflect and respond to the increasing diversity of higher education students and providers in England. That is why the Open University and one or two other organisations have suggested that it might be helpful to amend clause 59. Their suggestions are embodied in the proposed amendments. We have a lot of sympathy with those organisations’ belief that these changes would lead to a more balanced distribution of effort in the communication of higher education information to prospective students.
The Minister and I have crossed swords—no, not crossed swords; we have talked in a collaborative way about the importance of expanding the opportunities that are given to younger people in both the academic and the vocational arenas. The Minister also spoke the other day about the Government valuing adult students. It is therefore important that the structures for determining how information is published should be available to all people, whatever their age or individual circumstances. That is the purpose of amendment 295.
Again, the amendments are probing. We are not arguing that they need to be in the Bill, but it would be helpful if the Minister commented on whether he considers the existing terminology applying to the duty to be entirely adequate to deal with the changes that he envisages and the existing diversity of higher education students and providers. Perhaps he can indicate, by guidance or other comments, to the bodies coming into operation that the needs of adult students as a very diverse group should be reflected in the mechanisms that reach them.

Jo Johnson: The hon. Gentleman returns to one of his favourite themes. We are ensuring that the student interest will be properly represented, and better represented that it ever has been in the system’s regulatory structures. Schedule 1, which we have discussed extensively already, makes provision for the Secretary of State to ensure that he has regard to the desirability of people on the OFS board having experience of representing student interest, and they will do that effectively.

Gordon Marsden: I was not clear whether the Minister would speak to proposed new clause 2 before we had the clause stand part debate. However, since you have asked me to speak, Sir Edward, I will do so.
It seems to me that the Minister has got himself into a complete tangle over the business of fees. He will remember the Micawber principle that the difference between income and expenditure is the difference between happiness and misery. The Minister seems to be in some misery on this matter at the moment because he is unable to declare what amount the happiness will be.
I want to probe a little further on two or three specific points. The document that supports the case for the creation of the OFS, which is subtitled “a new public body in place of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Office for Fair Access”, was published in June 2016. That was before the referendum and all the consequences that flow from it. My question to the Minister is a technical one. Has that document been revised in any shape or form since?
Very little information has been given by the Government today. I accept that these matters cannot go in the Bill, but the paucity of information from the Minister when he says, “This will happen or we will have this, that or the other,” on something as crucial as establishing a new financial institution as well as a new non-departmental body, is pretty poor.
The Minister’s response to the comments of my hon. Friends about cost-sharing were very vague. I know myself from having spent a number of years in the private sector, working with a number of private institutions, how difficult and corrosive the issues of cost sharing can sometimes be within companies, let alone between organisations. I really do not think that the Minister has given a satisfactory answer in that area.
I refer the Minister to the comment he made earlier: “We are looking at this and we will produce information in due course.” In fact, the Government did produce information in due course. The information is contained in a document I have, and very revealing it is too. On page 22 of the “Case for creation of the Office for Students”, there are two tables. One talks about the operating costs of the OFS over the period 2018 to 2027. I found it very interesting that in 2018-19, the first year of operation, the operating cost will be £30.9 million. In 2019-20, it will be £32.5 million, and it will be £34.1 million in 2020-21. If my maths does not fail me, that is a fairly modest increase between 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, whereas in my experience of the private sector—I accept that this is not a private sector body, but it is in a situation of quasi operating as a private sector body—operating costs for the first two or three years of an organisation are always substantially higher in years 2 and 3 than they are in the first year. The Minister might want to elaborate on the basis on which those operating costs were dealt with.
However, perhaps more revealing is the stuff referred to in table 2, which gives the estimated split between  the costs covered by the sector and those covered by the Government. In 2018-19, we have a figure of £14.9 million for total Government support, as opposed to £16 million for total registration fees. Then there are separate and much smaller figures: £1.9 million for new provider support and £4.8 million for activities with wider economic or societal benefits. There is also transition funding, to which the Minister referred, of £8.2 million. In that context, depending on how we want to do the maths, the balance between Government support and support from the university sector—as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and others have made clear, substantially that means money coming from students —is 50:50.
When we go to the figures for 2019-20 and 2020-21, we are told that Government support will drop from £14.9 million to £8 million and the total registration fees income will be £24.4 million. I have checked, and that balance is retained during the subsequent years of the Department’s forecast. That means that the Government are bearing a load that is 25% of the operating costs of the office for students and the university sector and the students who fund it are being asked to cough up 75%.
If the Minister wants to say that those figures are inaccurate, he may do so, but he might find it rather embarrassing, given that his own Department produced this document in June. Really and truly, I do not think we have had very good or accurate explanations from the Minister today. If he were before the Select Committee, it might have some interesting questions for him.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree and I will repeat what I said earlier. This is a double-whammy in terms of the costing structure that the Department is suggesting for the university providers, and by implication. This is the reason why I raised Brexit. In an uncertain world, it will  pile more problems on them in the first two or three years. It is a whammy on the students. It is also a whammy on the new providers, which will be entrepreneurial in many cases and will not be able to bear more than is suggested in the Bill. If the OFS begins to crumble financially because of the incompetence of the costings produced by the Government, where will that leave the ability of the OFS to supervise and protect new providers? It is a dog’s breakfast, and the Minister has done nothing to unscramble it.

Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has done sterling work so far in trying to persuade the Government of the need to say more serious things in the Bill about the nature of academic freedom. The Government included various references to academic freedom in the Bill, but academic freedom is not simply a matter of transporting clauses and regulations from preceding information into the Bill and assuming that that will be adequate for the future. New Bills ought to be an opportunity to reflect on whether the definitions and priorities that Government have previously given have stood the test of time. Our argument, and that of many who have criticised the Bill, is that that is not the case. There have been major changes in these areas since we last had significant legislation of this sort and, therefore, we ought to have more thought and discussion about it. We have already debated retaining or otherwise the right of the Privy Council and university title. The most common institutional form of pre-1992 universities is incorporation by royal charter.
I want to quote the comments on that process from the alternative White Paper entitled, “In Defence of Public Higher Education: Knowledge for a Successful Society”, published by the Convention for Higher Education.
“These have a charter and statutes that cannot be changed except by Privy Council. The White Paper proposes to abolish this protection – a move that will allow increasing managerial influence over academic activity in the name of market flexibility and will significantly undermine academic freedom.”
The definition of academic freedom is an important issue, as it goes on to say:
“Academic freedom is found in two main instruments of these institutions. The first is protection against arbitrary dismissal. If a university researcher publishes evidence that a car manufacturer’s published nitrogen oxide readings are inconsistent with lab testing, then she or he risks losing funding from this manufacturer. The university itself may face retaliatory action.”
That is why that protection is there. That is also why, at an earlier stage, I pressed the Minister on adding a clause in the part on academic freedom, which would refer specifically to academics not being negatively affected by things that they might say about Government or other public institutions.
The document continues:
“Similarly, if a scientist in an advisory position to government reports that government drugs policy is inconsistent with risks of injury to the public, then she or he may lose their position of influence in government circles, but also become persona non grata among funding agencies. In either case, the institution as employer may well consider it expedient to dismiss the unfortunate scientist rather than protect her or him from the consequences of adhering to their scientific duty.”
Academic freedom is a central part of what we should be defending in the Bill, for all sorts of new institutions as well as the existing ones. As the document says:
“Academic freedom protections do not exist to privilege academics but to protect academic and scientific independence and authority.”
The practical effects, if we do not strengthen those procedures in the Bill, will be to accelerate a process that arguably means that we need more and not less protection. The document refers specifically to a process of “corporate intrusion” into academic judgment. It expresses a controversial view that might not be accepted by everybody in the room but should be heard:
“Academic Boards are dominated by those occupying managerial positions, and carrying budget responsibilities for cost centres, and have only minority representation from the professoriate, from other academic staff, from non-academic staff and from students. Those committees or boards that do remain largely composed of academic members of staff simply receive, ‘for information’, decisions that have been arrived at elsewhere—determined by the senior management groups in conjunction with Boards of Governors.”
The Convention for Higher Education does not consider that a satisfactory situation, and neither do I.